The notation of the part of the L.H. in [AI] (→JC), improved then in EF, reveals the evolution of both the sound and the notation. Initially, the f notes were repeated every crotchet on the 2nd and 3rd beat of bars 25 and 27 and at the beginning of bars 26 and 28. Then Chopin combined them with slurs, so the bass note is struck in the described fragments only twice, on the 2nd beat in bars 25 and 27. The notation of PE shows the newer version written by Chopin already more economically and naturally. A similar evolution concerned the notation of analogous bar 29 and only there did Chopin finally order the notation in [A] (→PE) by deleting – thanks to dividing the quaver figure in the upper voice from the sustained bass minim in the lower one – all traces of the original version (it could have been related to the use of notation in the treble clef, also on the 1st beat of bar 30).
In the main text, we homogenise the notation of all three places (bar 25, 27, and 29), choosing the most legible elements of the notation of PE (the bass clef and a full separation of the bass minim from the quaver movement).
In the notation of PE, there is no tie sustaining the f minim in bar 25. It is certainly a mistake, which is proven by holds of the note in JC and EF and of analogous bass notes – in all sources – in bars 27-28 and 29-30. It also cannot be excluded that the slur beginning over the 5th quaver in bar 25 was written in [A] under quavers and in fact designated the hold of the bass minim – such kinds of mistakes in reading Chopin's slurs were very often.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information
issues: Errors of JC
notation: Rhythm